That doesn't make any sense.  He's talking about quality.  You can't judge the quality of a studio that has never made a game.  If you want to say, "wait and see before judging," that would be different.

On topic, I dislike the practice of buying exclusive rights to a game that was going to be multi-plat.  However, partnering with a studio from the start, like Nintendo did to create W101, is a good thing.

I don't mind this approach, I only care about the games.

If you have bags of cash and are ok with the idea that your platform's defining franchises and devs will eventually go elsewhere if you ever stop spending what they've come to expect on them, or if your platform suddenly becomes the less popular one, sure. It's like the rich kid buying his friends.

If they're prepared to keep up the spending for Xbox One over the next 7 to 10 years more power to them, I suppose - they'll be building a library up either way. But it's worth noting that the only dev they have left that has created games for them with a >90 metacritic is Turn 10 - a first party studio that they've grown from the ground up and nurtured over a long period of time, like any good first party should. So maybe they should think more carefully about where they want to invest their money, and whether the long term gain of a proper first party studio trumps the short term gain of third party moneytrucks.

Pretty much this. Also, you could bring up franchises like Mass Effect. I doubt Microsoft would mind owning that IP. 

When you own a studio you don't have to fear that the games suddenly go over to other platforms. Imagine if Nintendo bought Square in the SNES era. They would never have jumped ship over to Sony. Could alone have changed the winners of that gen, not to mention following gens. That is the real advantage of owning studios.

A majority of their new studios were built from the ground up and not bought although i wish that they would buy Remedy.

I don't see anywhere him talking about quality?? Which is entirely subjective anyway, it's not like MS put out unplayable shit. Black Tusk has a lot of talent there, they're not gonna put out a 60 metacritic rated game ...

Sorry, i prefer real exclusive games made for the platform, no bought exclusive to prevent the game to be released on other platform like Titanfall, when the dev wanted to release it on PS4 -_- ( and we know the next will come, unlike a real exclusive )

Of course at the same time they also secured Titanfall exclusively, rescued Dead Rising 3 from cancelation from Crapcom, paid Crytek for Ryse, and have deals with Remedy and Insomniac for exclusive games. Among others. Plus all the DLC deals they have. So they are still doing what they did last gen, and also growing their own stable of developers so there is no "drought" that happened at retail this gen. Seems like a win/win for everyone. And he's not saying you shouldn't grow your own studios. He's saying some people get fixated on whether a game comes from a wholly owned studio or from "moneyhats" and judge the game accordingly. Of course he wants a nice big stable of developers, he's the most gamer relatable person at MS imho.

Games a game? Stupid reason not to like Titanfall. Cutting your nose off to spite your face I believe is the term.

"over 10 years in the industry and their first party lineup is by far the worse of the big three."

Seems to me that he's either talking about the quality of the studios or the quality of the games.  Either way, you can't count something that has shown zero results.  I actually applaud Microsoft for what they've done with building up first party studios but that simply isn't something that can be judged at this point.